A week or so ago on Mr. Pagel’s political blog PublicusProventus (or nonsportsman.com) somehow I got talking about PAC’s and I promised to post my comment as a full blog entry. So here we are! Actually I haven’t added much to it because I’m lazy.
I hate all these PACs or whatever they are with their stupid commercials telling me to call this guy or stop something or other.
There are two I see all the time. The first is about "What would $90 million in new energy taxes mean for you?" and then they ask supposedly random people on the street about how evil new energy taxes would be. I have no idea when these new taxes are being voted on because it seems like they've been airing these commercials for three years now. And gee, wouldn't you know they're paid for by the oil and natural gas companies? Who'd have thunk it?
The other ones are about stopping the building of a second bridge from Detroit to Windsor, Ontario. They've stepped it up lately, talking about how Governor Rick Snyder is holding back funding of the roads to get this bridge built. Well of course these ads are paid for by the Detroit International Bridge Company. Gee, the people who own the current bridge don't want another one built? Who'd have thunk it? What's funny though is part of their logic is saying, "Traffic has been down by 50% in the last decade." So basically the people who own the current bridge are spending millions to convince us their business sucks so much that they don't need competition. I can't find the actual commercials on YouTube, so here's something that claims to be a fact finding video on the commercials. Enjoy!
And unless you actually look to see who's paying for these ads, you might take them seriously. A lot of people probably don’t look though so they end up thinking, “Oh my God, we have to stop this right now!” Which is of course what they want. Shamelessly manipulating stupid people. But then political campaigns have been doing that in America for 245 years now and maybe even before that. This is just taking it to the next level.
The thing is, I wouldn’t mind ads if they were for good causes. Like when Mr. Pagel took to Twitter to help get support for an autism bill. Helping kids with autism is a good cause. Saving money for BP and ExxonMobil, etc. is not a good cause. Nor is helping the Detroit International Bridge Company eliminate potential competition. Yet because they have more money, those are the ads I see every morning during the news. Although as part of its penance for destroying the Gulf of Mexico last year, BP also airs ads inviting people back to the Gulf region. Which is a good cause. I wonder whose arm had to be twisted to make that happen? Probably some weaselly lawyers (sorry Mr. Pagel) thought it'd be a good way to gloss over their image. What was it Adam Smith said about being guided by the Invisible Hand of self-interest? Sometimes that hand is a little more invisible than others.
Tax the rich. They can afford to pay it. Whatever ends up falling down to my level is something I'll happily absorb. Warren Buffett is right on the money in everything he says. We are coddling the wealthy way too much in this country. It's ridiculous that BP and Exxon would even be considered for more tax breaks.
ReplyDeleteWeasel-y lawyer alert! Also: Close call on "Who Have Thunk It?" -- safe by a whisker from my team of copyright vultures swooping down on you and pecking the meat off your bones.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that in Michigan, they're fighting to keep bridges private as opposed to private-public, while in Wisconsin recently they moved to start creating public-private roads...
...which are essentially public guarantees that private contractors cannot lose money, which is what "conservatives" have become.
Also: the bill your story talked about says taxpayers "can't be on the hook" for this and then proposes paying for the bridge with a toll.
A TOLL IS A TAX.
ANY GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED FEE FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY OR WHICH PROPOSES A PUBLIC GOOD IS A TAX.
Tolls in particular are pernicious, regressive taxes. Every user fee or sales tax is a regressive tax.
Anyway, I am not against the airing of as many ads as people want to pay for, since that's what political discourse is. People think "corporate" money is bad, but money isn't bad or good and neither are corporations. Ben & Jerry's just said they support Occupy Wall Street. If corporations are free to promote political causes, as they should be, then people are free to take over corporations and use them to promote THEIR causes. It'll just switch the fight and as soon as the Democratic party realizes that, they'll mobilize Hollywood big shots and others, like Soros, to begin buying up corporations and directing their money to help fight Art Pope and the rest.
Imagine, for example, if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation decided to pour $1 billion in ads into getting that jobs bill passed, or recalling Walker: would liberals then be so upset about Citizens Finance? Probably not. I try to have a consistent position on things like that.
What I think they CAN, and SHOULD, do is require more clear disclosure of who's paying -- as a sometimes candidate I can tell you that the need to put your name on ads helps reduce (but not eliminate) negative ads -- and people should more vigorously contest false ads. That grandma in Ohio ought to SUE the Republicans for defaming her, and I bet she could do it, too.
You know Briane P, you put more research into your response than I did in my post. How embarrassing...for me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree money isn't inherently evil. It just seems the people who have a lot of it like to do evil things with it. The problem is the bridge people can spend millions to run their bullshit ads while all I can do is complain to my local reps or TV stations and bitch to my 180 Twitter followers and hope something happens, which makes it far from a level playing field. I'd just like things to be a little more fair and balanced...and now I will wait for Fox "News" to send its weaselly lawyers charging into the building to yank me off my computer and send me to Guantanamo Bay.
I hate politics, I really do. I'm a firm believer that in order to succeed in politics (like, become a career politician) you have to be a sociopath. You know, that amoral outlook on life that allows you to sleep peacefully at night after making a mockery of those that have put their faith and trust in you.
ReplyDeleteYes, I hate those commercials too. Mostly the ones that accuse so and so of voting to murder old people because they want to offer tax credits for growing coffee beans. Lots of stupid stuff out there.
So, I try not to think about it too much. It would consume me if I let it.
Good points Muttley.
ReplyDeleteI think new paradigm citizens are going to have to get used to doing a lot more critical thinking than people are used to doing now.
We've spent decades mindlessly sucking in TV (as a nation, not individually per se) and look where it's gotten us.
One thing I hope Occupy Wall Street changes forever is the media. I'd love to see more people gathering information from a variety of small local sources, i.e., bloggers and local news, and engaging their own curiosity and BS filters more.